Flint v. Cadenasso
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tolo County, and from an order refusing a neiv trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMyrick, J.
The facts of this case, as presented by the complaint, and as found by the court, may be briefly stated thus: Joel Wood, being the owner of a tract of land, and being indebted to Flint (the plaintifl), executed his promissory note, and a mortgage upon the land to secure the payment thereof. Subsequently, Joel Wood conveyed the premises to Albert Wood, by deed expressing a money consideration, while the consideration, in fact, was an agreement that Albert Wood should pay for Joel Wood the amount of the note and mortgage. Thereafter, Albert Wood conveyed to the defendants, by deed also…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Washer v. Independent Mining & Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Alvord v. Spring Valley Gold Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Whitney v. American Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.